Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:35 AM - Re: coax splitter (Ken Ryan)
2. 07:28 AM - Re: coax splitter (Charlie England)
3. 07:38 AM - Re: coax splitter (Alec Myers)
4. 08:12 AM - Re: coax splitter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:17 AM - Re: IVO Prop current limiter (kfav8r)
6. 08:18 AM - Re: coax splitter (Alec Myers)
7. 08:31 AM - Re: coax splitter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:23 AM - Re: coax splitter (Ken Ryan)
9. 09:23 AM - CS-02 = POS (William Hunter)
10. 09:35 AM - Re: IVO Prop current limiter (kfav8r)
11. 11:16 AM - Re: coax splitter ()
12. 11:20 AM - Re: coax splitter (Alec Myers)
13. 01:29 PM - Re: CS-02 = POS (donjohnston)
14. 10:40 PM - Re: Re: CS-02 = POS (William Hunter)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
Charlie,
I *thought* I was following Bob's advice, using the splitter instead of the
cheezy switch. I can't find the thread but I think what he said was that
the switch is far more likely to damage something (due to failure) than it
is to perform as designed, when needed.
Again, I am trying to recall ... but I think the idea is that if I ever
need to use the handheld, the first thing I do is turn off the
(non-functioning) com radio and only then use panel jack to connect the
handheld to the antenna.
So now I guess I have two questions--my original (Does it make any
difference which coax goes to what connector?) and now a second: As long as
I turn off the com radio before connecting the handheld to the antenna, am
I safe from damaging either radio?
Ken
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ceengland7@gmail.com>
>
>
> On 5/16/2017 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
>> So I am revisiting my (untested) installation that allows me to use my
>> com antenna with a handheld. First I was going to use that little iCom box
>> until Bob revealed that it is junk. So instead I installed a good quality
>> splitter with a bulkhead connector on the panel. My brain must not have
>> been working very well when I did the installation because I didn't think
>> it through. I just blindly hooked the com radio to the "S" the panel to the
>> "1" and the com antenna to the "2"
>>
>> Later I got thinking that probably the com antenna should go to the "S"
>> and the com radio and panel connector should use the "1" and the "2"
>>
>> So I pulled the thing out and got out my continuity tester, and all the
>> center pins test for continuity with each other. So now I am thinking that
>> it doesn't matter which goes where, and that I can just put it back the way
>> it was.
>>
>> Before I do, I would like to confirm that all this thing is doing is
>> connecting all three connectors together equally, and that there is no need
>> or advantage to any particular order.
>>
>> I am attaching a spec sheet for the part, which is a Mini-Circuits
>> Splitter ZFSC-2-1+
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ken
>>
> Don't do it.
>
> A splitter doesn't do the same thing as a switch box (hence, the different
> names).
>
> A splitter will send an antenna's signal to two *receivers*.
>
> The switch box (cheesy though it is) actually switches the antenna between
> two radios. Because it switches, it's ok to attach both *transceivers* to
> the box. Only one gets connected at a time.
>
> If you connect two transceivers through the splitter to one antenna, then
> one transmitter will attempt to transmit directly into the other's
> receiver. Not a good plan.
>
> Charlie
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
On 5/17/2017 8:33 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> I *thought* I was following Bob's advice, using the splitter instead
> of the cheezy switch. I can't find the thread but I think what he said
> was that the switch is far more likely to damage something (due to
> failure) than it is to perform as designed, when needed.
>
> Again, I am trying to recall ... but I think the idea is that if I
> ever need to use the handheld, the first thing I do is turn off the
> (non-functioning) com radio and only then use panel jack to connect
> the handheld to the antenna.
>
> So now I guess I have two questions--my original (Does it make any
> difference which coax goes to what connector?) and now a second: As
> long as I turn off the com radio before connecting the handheld to the
> antenna, am I safe from damaging either radio?
>
> Ken
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <ceengland7@gmail.com <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>>
>
>
> On 5/16/2017 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>
> So I am revisiting my (untested) installation that allows me
> to use my com antenna with a handheld. First I was going to
> use that little iCom box until Bob revealed that it is junk.
> So instead I installed a good quality splitter with a bulkhead
> connector on the panel. My brain must not have been working
> very well when I did the installation because I didn't think
> it through. I just blindly hooked the com radio to the "S" the
> panel to the "1" and the com antenna to the "2"
>
> Later I got thinking that probably the com antenna should go
> to the "S" and the com radio and panel connector should use
> the "1" and the "2"
>
> So I pulled the thing out and got out my continuity tester,
> and all the center pins test for continuity with each other.
> So now I am thinking that it doesn't matter which goes where,
> and that I can just put it back the way it was.
>
> Before I do, I would like to confirm that all this thing is
> doing is connecting all three connectors together equally, and
> that there is no need or advantage to any particular order.
>
> I am attaching a spec sheet for the part, which is a
> Mini-Circuits Splitter ZFSC-2-1+
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
> Don't do it.
>
> A splitter doesn't do the same thing as a switch box (hence, the
> different names).
>
> A splitter will send an antenna's signal to two *receivers*.
>
> The switch box (cheesy though it is) actually switches the antenna
> between two radios. Because it switches, it's ok to attach both
> *transceivers* to the box. Only one gets connected at a time.
>
> If you connect two transceivers through the splitter to one
> antenna, then one transmitter will attempt to transmit directly
> into the other's receiver. Not a good plan.
>
> Charlie
>
You might get away with it, but I wouldn't do it.
The ports are not symmetrical in all three directions. See the labels on
the data sheet. The 'S' (sum, as in adding) port is the combining of
ports 1 & 2. If you were using two simple radio *receivers*, the antenna
would go on the S port and the radios would go on ports 1 & 2. Or if
using 2 antennas to feed one radio (not common, but it does happen), the
radio would go on the S port.
Why not just duplicate the electrical schematic of the cheesy switch,
but replace the 1/8" normalizing jack with a simple miniature toggle
switch? Replace the jack function of the normalizing jack with another
BNC connector. That way, you can leave the handheld *and* the panel
radio both plugged into the box, and if there's a problem with the panel
radio, reach under the panel & flip the switch to connect the antenna to
the hand held.
Realistically, if the handheld is for emergency communications only, why
not just use the rubber ducky that comes with it? It'll work for 10-15
miles, so what's not to like? Simple, reliable, no extra parts to fail,
etc etc.
Charlie
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
> On May 17, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> why not just use the rubber ducky that comes with it? It'll work for
10-15 miles, so what's not to like? Simple, reliable, no extra parts to
fail, etc etc.
A 1.5W battery-powered hand-held in to a rubber whip antenna has
difficulty transmitting more than a mile. It=99s even worse when
you=99re inside a metal skinned aircraft.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
At 09:29 AM 5/17/2017, you wrote:
>On 5/17/2017 8:33 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>Charlie,
>>
>>I *thought* I was following Bob's advice, using
>>the splitter instead of the cheezy switch. I
>>can't find the thread but I think what he said
>>was that the switch is far more likely to
>>damage something (due to failure) than it is to
>>perform as designed, when needed.=C2
>>
>>Again, I am trying to recall ... but I think
>>the idea is that if I ever need to use the
>>handheld, the first thing I do is turn off the
>>(non-functioning) com radio and only then use
>>panel jack to connect the handheld to the antenna.
>>
>>So now I guess I have two questions--my
>>original (Does it make any difference which
>>coax goes to what connector?) and now a second:
>>As long as I turn off the com radio before
>>connecting the handheld to the antenna, am I safe from damaging either
radio?
The only recommendation I have posted for
this application is the idea of a crew-accessible
splice connection in the antenna's feed line.
This allows the pilot to open the feed line
and connect it to the hand-held. There ARE
devices that will allow two transceivers
to share a common antenna but they are expensive,
big and heavy.
The 'power splitter' is used to let two small
signal devices to share the same source/load.
They are used with two receivers and in some
bench test situations. As others have pointed
out, it is not suited to the proposed task.
I once proposed a panel mounted dpdt toggle
switch and dummy load that would transfer
a single antenna between two transceivers
while presenting a proper load to the transceiver
not in service.
Emacs!
The switch can be a miniature toggle.
Coax to the hand/held can be routed
of the switch to a bnc jack on the
panel . . .
But give the reliability of modern elex,
it seems a bit of over-kill. A
splice in the feed line mitigates
the rare failure event with a minimum of
cost.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IVO Prop current limiter |
Thanks for the replies. I'll get some pictures ASAP.
--------
Doug
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469391#469391
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
Bob,
How damaging is it to a modern 5W or 10W transmitter to transmit into an
open circuit?
> On May 17, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 09:29 AM 5/17/2017, you wrote:
>> On 5/17/2017 8:33 AM, Ken Ryan wrote:
>>> Charlie,
>>>
>>> I *thought* I was following Bob's advice, using the splitter instead
of the cheezy switch. I can't find the thread but I think what he said
was that the switch is far more likely to damage something (due to
failure) than it is to perform as designed, when needed.=C3=82
>>>
>>> Again, I am trying to recall ... but I think the idea is that if I
ever need to use the handheld, the first thing I do is turn off the
(non-functioning) com radio and only then use panel jack to connect the
handheld to the antenna.
>>>
>>> So now I guess I have two questions--my original (Does it make any
difference which coax goes to what connector?) and now a second: As long
as I turn off the com radio before connecting the handheld to the
antenna, am I safe from damaging either radio?
>
> The only recommendation I have posted for
> this application is the idea of a crew-accessible
> splice connection in the antenna's feed line.
>
> This allows the pilot to open the feed line
> and connect it to the hand-held. There ARE
> devices that will allow two transceivers
> to share a common antenna but they are expensive,
> big and heavy.
>
> The 'power splitter' is used to let two small
> signal devices to share the same source/load.
> They are used with two receivers and in some
> bench test situations. As others have pointed
> out, it is not suited to the proposed task.
>
> I once proposed a panel mounted dpdt toggle
> switch and dummy load that would transfer
> a single antenna between two transceivers
> while presenting a proper load to the transceiver
> not in service.
>
> <325e15d9.jpg>
> The switch can be a miniature toggle.
> Coax to the hand/held can be routed
> of the switch to a bnc jack on the
> panel . . .
>
> But give the reliability of modern elex,
> it seems a bit of over-kill. A
> splice in the feed line mitigates
> the rare failure event with a minimum of
> cost.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
At 10:17 AM 5/17/2017, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>How damaging is it to a modern 5W or 10W transmitter to transmit
>into an open circuit?
Probably none . . . it's stone simple to
incorporate internal swr sense hardware
that will reduce drive to the transmitter's
output stage under poor swr conditions.
I've not studied the constellation of
products out there but I cannot imagine
anyone NOT making this part of their
elegant design . . . cost of doing
so is trivial . . . return on investment
is significant.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
Thanks everybody, for saving me from my myself. I have tried to review all
the previous threads, and cannot figure out how I came up with doing what I
did.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 10:17 AM 5/17/2017, you wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> How damaging is it to a modern 5W or 10W transmitter to transmit into an
> open circuit?
>
>
> Probably none . . . it's stone simple to
> incorporate internal swr sense hardware
> that will reduce drive to the transmitter's
> output stage under poor swr conditions.
>
> I've not studied the constellation of
> products out there but I cannot imagine
> anyone NOT making this part of their
> elegant design . . . cost of doing
> so is trivial . . . return on investment
> is significant.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The Grand Rapids CS-02 is a POS!!!
I bought one and while wiring it up it fell apart. The wires snap onto the
ring with a plastic clip and this clip is VERY fragile.
Grand Rapids replaced it for free and the second one fell apart during the
assembly so I will not go that route again.
Can someone please give me a suggestion for a ring type current sensor that
I can use in lieu of the GS-02?
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IVO Prop current limiter |
Pictures attached...
--------
Doug
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469398#469398
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20170517_104757921_compressor_144.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20170517_104735835_compressor_427.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20170517_104724804_compressor_175.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_20170517_104716435_compressor_200.jpg
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<< A 1.5W battery-powered hand-held in to a rubber whip antenna has
difficulty transmitting
<< more than a mile. Its even worse when youre inside a metal
skinned aircraft.
Not sure what hand-held radio you're using, but using my Sporty's SP-400
with the "rubber ducky" antenna, I was able to talk to my local tower
crew from 15 miles away. They said I was a bit "scratchy" but
understandable. At 10 miles, it was pretty much crystal clear.
That said, I have a coax connector in my plane so I can plug it into the
external antenna. Using it that way, I was talking to ATC from about 25
miles away.
Jim Parker
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: coax splitter |
ICOM A24. I have a Sportys SP400 but even when off it drains the batteries in 7
days, then they leak all over the inside. Piece of trash.
> On May 17, 2017, at 2:14 PM, <jim@PoogieBearRanch.com> <jim@PoogieBearRanch.com>
wrote:
>
>
> << A 1.5W battery-powered hand-held in to a rubber whip antenna has
> difficulty transmitting
> << more than a mile. Its even worse when youre inside a metal
> skinned aircraft.
>
> Not sure what hand-held radio you're using, but using my Sporty's SP-400
> with the "rubber ducky" antenna, I was able to talk to my local tower
> crew from 15 miles away. They said I was a bit "scratchy" but
> understandable. At 10 miles, it was pretty much crystal clear.
>
> That said, I have a coax connector in my plane so I can plug it into the
> external antenna. Using it that way, I was talking to ATC from about 25
> miles away.
>
> Jim Parker
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt.
The issue with these is very easy to fix (if you want to). Here's what I found
out happened:
See how pretty the pins are? The wires are supposed to be soldered to those pins.
But the guy they had assembling these was just stripping the wires, laying
them next to the pins, sliding the heat shrink tubing down and then heating
it up.
So all I did was solder the wires directly to the pins and cover with heat shrink.
Been working great for the past six months.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469406#469406
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks Don... my soldering skills + very small wires = POS... so I better
think of something else.
Thanks,
Bill Hunter
On May 17, 2017 1:34 PM, "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com> wrote:
> don@velocity-xl.com>
>
> Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt.
>
> The issue with these is very easy to fix (if you want to). Here's what I
> found out happened:
>
> See how pretty the pins are? The wires are supposed to be soldered to
> those pins. But the guy they had assembling these was just stripping the
> wires, laying them next to the pins, sliding the heat shrink tubing down
> and then heating it up.
>
> So all I did was solder the wires directly to the pins and cover with heat
> shrink.
>
> Been working great for the past six months.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469406#469406
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|